Teaser Trailer For Angels and Demons

First Look: Teaser For Angels and Demons

I'm not totally sure that The Da Vinci Code was so awesome that Dan Brown's other popular novel, Angels and Demons, needed to be adapted for film, but Hollywood didn't listen to me on this one and the movie moved forward. Now we have a little peek at what might be in store for us and from this very brief look, the film does appear to be pretty spooky and riveting.

Ron Howard directs and Tom Hanks is again playing Robert Langdon the Harvard symbologist who "works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican." The movie opens May 15.

Have you read this book? Did you like The Da Vinci Code?

To take a look at the teaser trailer and let me know what you think, read more.

Both novels by Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are excellent. Perhaps a different director who doesn't feel the need to always include his BFF, Tom Hanks, as the lead might have been able to give a more honest and exciting visual interpretation. Neither movie came close to capturing the core essence and profound attraction of the novels' characters and plots. And Tom Hanks, although a competent actor, was a poor casting choice for Langdon, thereby, sinking both movies from the "get-go". The novels deal interestingly and intelligently with controversial, delicate issues. Both novels are exciting, written with strong plots and uniquely compeling characters. Religious zealots deal with these novels by calling Dan Brown a poor writer, fearing that the truth that organized religion is just a big business enterprise will enlighten even more intelligent people.
Unfortunately Ron Howard drove a nail through both novels with his film adaptations. He did not capture the dark side of the novels, nor did he exhibit the profound shock that needed to be conveyed on screen. Better director choices would have been Scorsese or Tim Burton. And certainly Tom Hanks should never have been given the role of Langdon. I was delighted when Ron Howard announced he was going to bring The DaVinci Code to the screen until he presented Tom Hanks as Langdon. Then I knew it was going to not reach the pinnacle that it should. When he did it again (since it is the same lead character) in Angels and Demons - I just thought, "What a waste." I would have liked to have seen Scorsese or Tim Burton interpret these novels to the visual medium. Too bad.

Both novels by Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons are excellent. Perhaps a different director who doesn't feel the need to always include his BFF, Tom Hanks, as the lead might have been able to give a more honest and exciting visual interpretation. Neither movie came close to capturing the core essence and profound attraction of the novels' characters and plots. And Tom Hanks, although a competent actor, was a poor casting choice for Langdon, thereby, sinking both movies from the "get-go". The novels deal interestingly and intelligently with controversial, delicate issues. Both novels are exciting, written with strong plots and uniquely compeling characters. Religious zealots deal with these novels by calling Dan Brown a poor writer, fearing that the truth that organized religion is just a big business enterprise will enlighten even more intelligent people. Unfortunately Ron Howard drove a nail through both novels with his film adaptations. He did not capture the dark side of the novels, nor did he exhibit the profound shock that needed to be conveyed on screen. Better director choices would have been Scorsese or Tim Burton. And certainly Tom Hanks should never have been given the role of Langdon. I was delighted when Ron Howard announced he was going to bring The DaVinci Code to the screen until he presented Tom Hanks as Langdon. Then I knew it was going to not reach the pinnacle that it should. When he did it again (since it is the same lead character) in Angels and Demons - I just thought, "What a waste." I would have liked to have seen Scorsese or Tim Burton interpret these novels to the visual medium. Too bad.

Books have always been better than screen adaptations. Such a shame because Dc could have been better as a movie. I have always preferred Angels and Demons more than DC. I'll go see this movie also, I think it can be filmed for more impact with this story more than Dc.

I really enjoyed "Davinci Code" and then read "Angels and Demons" which I actually thought was a better book. But all of that Dan Brown stuff led me to "Holy Blood Holy Grail" and I have to admit that the authors of that book SHOULD have won their law suit against Dan Brown, b/c he completely stole everything from THEIR book.
It's not a quick read like "Davinci Code" but well worth it. That book finally led me to a documentary called "Bloodines" that was excellent. This after watching many many many of this type of documentary only to be disappointed and not find a credible source in any of them. Bloodlines in truly great!
I think the trailer for this one looks pretty good and I am willing to spend 10 bucks to see it, even if Davinci Code the movie was disappointing.

I really enjoyed "Davinci Code" and then read "Angels and Demons" which I actually thought was a better book. But all of that Dan Brown stuff led me to "Holy Blood Holy Grail" and I have to admit that the authors of that book SHOULD have won their law suit against Dan Brown, b/c he completely stole everything from THEIR book. It's not a quick read like "Davinci Code" but well worth it. That book finally led me to a documentary called "Bloodines" that was excellent. This after watching many many many of this type of documentary only to be disappointed and not find a credible source in any of them. Bloodlines in truly great!I think the trailer for this one looks pretty good and I am willing to spend 10 bucks to see it, even if Davinci Code the movie was disappointing.

i read angels and demons before da vinci code ... and it was waaaay better. i stayed up finishing it and couldnt put it down. when i read dvc i got bored and flipped thru the end. the movie wasnt htat good. tom hanks really threw me off - george clooney, robert redford, harrison ford would have been better.

I thought the storylines behind both books were highly entertaining but I completely agree that Dan Brown is just a terrible writer. I never had high hopes for the movies though because I think Tom Hanks (while a wonderful actor) was seriously miscast. Sam Neil would have been a great choice. When I first read the books, I imagined George Clooney in that role.

I actually really really preferred Angels and Demons to the DaVinci Code and I'm going to hope they learned from the mistakes they made with the DVC film adaptation. The trailer looks good, I'll definitely see it.

I guess I fall into the category of people who like him. I enjoyed The Da Vinci code ( at least the book) and i really like Angels and Demons. I'm a History Major in school right now, so at least for me , its nice to read a book every now and then that doesn't require a lot of thought or note taking... Dan Brown defiantly delivers an easy read with an interesting take on history even if it is fiction.

I don't think Dan Brown is a good writer. I really dislike his writing style. And I completely agree austerity, he's trying to be Umberto Eco. I don't know if he would have been a good historian, I don't think so, but I don't know enough about the subject. But as a fiction writer, I wouldn't even call him mediocre, just plain bad.
About the movie, I'm not interested at all. The Da Vinci Code was really bad, and this looks like the second part.

EuroLaura, Sam Neill is a great call! I'm not sure if I had a specific actor in mind, but it WASN'T Tom Hanks.
The main thing that bothers me with Dan Brown is how similar all of his plots are, and of course the clunky writing. But in his defense, I think the man is an intellectual - I've seen him speak many times and he's really sharp, responds without hesitation to interrogation - but he would have made a better historian than fiction writer.

EuroLaura, Sam Neill is a great call! I'm not sure if I had a specific actor in mind, but it WASN'T Tom Hanks. The main thing that bothers me with Dan Brown is how similar all of his plots are, and of course the clunky writing. But in his defense, I think the man is an intellectual - I've seen him speak many times and he's really sharp, responds without hesitation to interrogation - but he would have made a better historian than fiction writer.

Dan Brown is a pseudo-intellectual. He just tries to sound smart by throwing in a lot of historical jargon in his books, but his books lack any form of depth and he fails miserably at hiding it. I'm not saying he has to use inflated language, but his writing style is something I'd expect kids in elementary school to read! (maybe!) What's worse is, he think he's Umberto Eco. HA. Not only is he not, it's also just plain bad that he tries to copy another author.